Chennai Court January 1926 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
A.G. Sambasiva Aiyar Vs. Venkatarama Aiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1926
Reported in: 95Ind.Cas.447; (1926)51MLJ95
Ramesam, J.1. The facts of this case may be stated as follows : One Perambala Chetti owed the present plaintiff a sum of money on a promissory note, dated 13th November, 1913. The said Perambala Chetti sold some of his properties on 16th October, 1914 to Doraiswami Aiyar, the father of the defendants, and left Rs. 560 out of the purchase money in the vendee's hands with instructions to remit the same to the plaintiff towards his promissory note debt. Doraiswami Aiyar remitted Rs. 625 to the plaintiff on 11th December, 1925 but the plaintiff refused to accept the amount on the ground that more sum than what was remitted was due. He afterwards instituted a suit against Perambala Chetti on the promissory note and obtained a decree and in execution of that decree he attached the debt due to Perambala from Doraiswami Aiyar, consisting of the unpaid purchase money with interest and purchased it himself. He now sues to recover the amount claiming also a lien on the suit properties. Unless the...
Srinivasa Aiyangar Vs. Vellayan Ambalam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad966; (1926)51MLJ143
1. The suit property belonged to one Venkata ranganadha Naicker. It was sold in Court auction on the 13th of July, 1891 in execution of a small pause decree obtained against him and was purchased by the predecessor-in-title of the appellant. The sale was confirmed on the 14th of September, 1891. The property was attached before sale and during the pendency of the attachment it was mortgaged on the 15th of June 1891 by Venkataranganadha Naicker to the predecessor-in-title of the defendant. The plaintiff-appellant has brought this suit for redemption of the mortgage on the ground that the defendant is only a mortgagee and that he being the owner of equity of redemption is entitled to redeem the property. The District Munsif decreed the appellant's suit, but the Subordinate Judge reversed it on the ground that the defendant had acquired a good title by prescription. On second appeal Madhavan Nair, J., held that the appellant's suit was barred under Article 137 of the Limitation Act.2. It ...
Union Board Vs. Chellaswami thevar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad1068; 97Ind.Cas.947
Waller, J.1. The decision in this case must follow the decision in Madura Municipality v. Muthu Balu Chetty A.I.R. 1926 Mad. 576. Though the two cases spring out of the different Acts, the provisions by which they are governed are identical. I think that the Magistrate was right in holding that Section 193 of the Local Boards Act did not apply and that respondents were not bound to take out licenses annually. The Revision Petition is therefore dismissed.2. I may add that the Magistrate's order can, in my opinion, be supported on another ground. It seems to me clear that Section 221 of the Act can have no application to a case like this. 'Where the President of a Local Board thinks that a person should take out a license under Section 193 of the Act and that person refuses to do so, and carries on his industry without a license the proper course is to prosecute him under Section 207 and not to apply under Section 221 for the recovery of the fee for the license. It was argued before the ...
Srinivasa Iyengar Vs. Veelayan Ambalam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1926
Reported in: 97Ind.Cas.718
1. The suit property belonged to one Venkataranganadha Naicker. It was sold in Court auction on the 13th of July, 1891, in execution of a small cause decree obtained against him and was purchased by the predecessor-in-title of the appellant. The sale was confirmed on the 14th of September, 1891. The property was attached before sale and during the pendency of the attachment, it was mortgaged on the 15th June, 1891, by Venkataranganadha Naicker to the predecessor-in-title of the defendant. The plaintiff-appellant has brought this suit for redemption of the mortgage on the ground that the defendant is only a mortgagee and that he being the owner of equity of redemption is entitled to redeem the property. The District Munsif decreed the appellant's suit, but the Subordinate Judge reversed it on the ground that the defendant had acquired a good title by prescription. On second appeal Madhavan Nair, J., held that the appellant's suit was barred under Article 137 of the Limitation Act.2. It ...
Narayanaswami Aiyar Vs. Venkatarama Aiyar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad808; 95Ind.Cas.264; (1926)50MLJ511
1. This is an appeal from an order of remand. Plaintiff is the appellant. He is the assignee of a mortgage from the 8th defendant. The 1st defendant's deceased husband mortgaged the suit properties to the 8th defendant for a sum of Rs. 550 under Ex. A dated the 23rd of July, 1909. Later on, the 1st defendant who had become entitled to the properties sold them to the 4th defendant under Ex. D subject to the payment of the suit mortgage, the consideration for which was mentioned as Rs. 550. This appeal arises out of the suit instituted by the plaintiff, the assignee, for the enforcement of the mortgage by sale of the mortgaged properties.2. The 4th defendant contended that the mortgage was not supported by consideration. The District Munsif held that he was estopped from questioning the consideration for Ex. A,3. The learned Subordinate Judge on appeal held that there was no estoppel and remanded the suit for trying the question of consideration.4. The contesting respondent has taken a p...
Subramania Ayyar Vs. Nalla Kayandan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad634
1. The property in suit came into the possession of Venkataramana Iyer by the Will of his maternal grandfather. It never assumed the character of ancestral property if we understand that expression in the technical sense of property in which a son on birth becomes an equal owner with his father. It follows that Venkataramana Iyer's widow had, when he died issueless, a preferential right of inheritance over his father.2. The cases of Muthayan Chetti v. Sivargiri Zamindar [1881] 3 Mad. 370. Sivaganga Zamindar v. Lakshmana [1886] 9 Mad. 188 and Muthuvadugurinatha Tevar v. Periasami [1893] 16 Mad. 11 cited by appellant's vakil are all cases of impartible estates as to which there are rights of primogeniture. It would be unsafe to take any statements as to the law out of the judgments in those eases and apply them to different circumstances. In Venkayamma Garu v. Venkata Ramanayamma Bahadur Garu [1902] 25 Mad. 678 the property devolved upon maternal grandsons not by Will but by the ordinary...
Majeti Antayya Vs. Lingmbhotla Venkata Ramayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1926
Reported in: 95Ind.Cas.5
1. In this case, a scheme was framed in respect of the suit trust and under the scheme permission was given to apply to the Court for directions for the proper management of the institution. The respondents who are the archakas of the temple, have filed this petition praying for payment of the salaries to which they are entitled under the provisions of the scheme. It has now been finally decided by the Privy Council in Sevak Jeranchod Bhogilal v. Dakore Temple Committee that applications of this nature do not come under Section 47 of the C.P.C. Consequently, no appeal lies and the appeal filed here must be dismissed.2. There remains to be considered what are the rights of the parties under the civil revision petition which has also been filed, and undoubtedly, that petition raises a question of jurisdiction, for it is contended that the Court had no jurisdiction to order execution of the decree containing the scheme. That this argument has considerable force is clear from the very form...
Obla Jr. Narasimha Aiyar Vs. Gunnia V. Rangachari and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad689; (1926)50MLJ477
Phillips, J.1. In this case, the petitioner was released on giving security under Section 55(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Under that section, he has to file his petition in insolvency within 30 days of the order but he did not do so in the present instance and applied for extension of time on the ground that he had been ill for the latter half of the one month allowed. The Lower Appellate Court has held that the Court had no jurisdiction to increase the time of 30 days allowed by Section 55. It is now contended that under Section 148 the time may be extend-ed; but under Section 148 the time that can be extended is a period fixed or granted by the Court. In an order under Section 55(4), there is no question of the period being fixed or granted by the Court, for the period is fixed by the Code itself and consequently Section 148 would not appear to be applicable.2. Reliance is, however, placed on a decision of the Privy Council in Burjore and Bhawani Pershad v. Bhagana (1883) ILR 1...
S. Hari Rao Vs. Official Assignee, High Court and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad556
Coutts-Trotter, C.J.1. The question raised here is whether the insolvent has a right of appeal against an order con-firming a sale of part of the estate which was originally his and subsequently vested in the Official Assignee, an order which he sought to oppose. The matter was referred to a Full Bench in view of what were represented to be the directly conflicting decision of this Court in Sivasubramania Pillai v. Theethiappa Pillai A.I.R. 1924 Mad.163, and of the Allahabad High Court in Sakhawat Ali v. Radha Mohan [1919] 41 All. 243. We observe that the English decisions on the subject were not cited so far as appears from the report to the Madras Court. We have examined those decisions and come to the conclusion that they ought to be followed.2. The only ground on which the insolvent's right to appeal can be based is that he is a person aggrieved because his. estate having vested in the Official Assignee he is nevertheless entitled to say that if all the claims of the creditors who ...
Chakravarthi Nainar Vs. Pushpavathi Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad985; 95Ind.Cas.1005
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. After giving this matter my very careful consideration, I am satisfied that the decision of the learned Judge is correct, that he has committed no error of law, and that I cannot interfere with his judgment in second appeal. He had a very difficult task to perform and I think he performed it well.2. One Marudappa died leaving a Will in favour of his mother, and the present suit has been filed by a reversionary heir attacking the Will. The plaintiff's case is that Marudappa was a minor at the date of his death and was thus not competent to make a Will. The question to be determined is, therefore, whether Marudappa was a minor or a major at the time of his death. The learned District Judge has come to the conclusion that he was a major, and I am asked to decide, whether his decision is vitiated by any error of law. I am satisfied that it is not.3. Exhibit 2 which has been relied on by the District Judge establishes that Marudappa was born in the year 1900 and was t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »